New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-01-10
MR. HIsCOCKS REVENUE BILL.

Mr.. Hiscock's bill to reduce tho revenue
ought to be considered thoughtfully by those
Democrats who sec that they cannot afford to
follow free-trade leaders into the ditch. Though
the bill might in the aggregate reduce the
revenue not more than $6O,OOO,OOO, and a
larger reduction is practicable. it goes much
further in that direction than any OF the tills
offered by Democratic leaders. 1t is something
to be noted that the largest reduction of duties
vet proposed, by any element or leader in the
House, should be proposed by the Republicans.
Reckoning on the basis of last years importa-
tons the reduction in the sugar and tobacco
revenue would be about $53,OOO,OOO, while
It is a matter Of conjecture to some extent how
large a part Of the tax on spirits would bc cut
off by the provisions relating TO methylatcd
spirits and to manufacture of various articles
not beverages in internal revenue warehouses
Nor can 1t be accurately estimated how much
sugar would he produced subject to the bounty
offered for domestic production OF bees or
cane, or Of manufactured sugar. But these
calculations are Of small value. Imports o.
sugar would naturally 10 increased by reduc-
ton of the duty, but it is impossible to say
how soon the development OF beet or cane
production in this country would materially
curtail the demand for foreign sugar OF any
kind.
Three provisions of the measure call for
especial examination. Germany has been pay
ing bounty on the production of sugar. and
has thereby so vastly increased tho production
in a very few years that it has not only secured
cheaper sugar for German consumers, but
affected tho price throughout the world Why
should not this country encourage tho same
industry by the same means The persons
who think it sin to stimu ate any home in
dusry, but enlightened 10 help all foreigne
as far as they can, may be respectfully referred
TO the example and teachings of Washington,
Jefferson and other founders of the Republic.
1t s worth while 10 see whether this industry
cannot be as successfully developed in this
country as in Germany. 1t will probably be
found that nearly every member of Congress
who objects to this proposition is in the habit
of oil jecting 10 the encouragement Of home in
dustry in any other way Where duties OH
imports serve the purpose by compelling for
cigneIs to pay taNes TO the United States in
order to get the privilege of selling in the
markets of this country. that mode OF prolcc-
lion is preferred hut where duties IN impots
90 not reach mo emu utSiTCu, III Is CoHNioUNb
with the vital aim Of protection TO try the
efficiency of other methods.
The reduction in rae Of duty on sugar from
! 40 to 4 cent per pound for sugar below No.
l3 Dutch standard is not to apply TO any sugar |
imported from countries whore export taxes |
are imposed. The intent and natural effect OF
this provision would 10 TO force all sugar
producing countries to abolish the export
taxes But it is not so clear why the whole
duty should not 10 abolished, as TO sugar i'm
ported from countries which impose no duty
on exports When Mr.. lIiscock speaks in OK
PLANTATION of his bin, he may offer reasons for
| Chewing that the thyaicd spirit provision
would take from the Treasury so large sum
that further reduction of tho revenue would
not bc advisable 10 is with many still a
question whether 1t is pract cable, by this or
any other provision, 10 exempt from taxation
81 iri s intended for manufacturing or medicinal
purposes, without impairng the revenue from
spirits used rs a beverage The experience Of
other countries in that direction will doubtless
he cited by Mr.. Hiscock with effect. and some
Of the features of his bill appear to he an i'm
provement upon the methods of any other
country, and are entitled to serious consider
alton